Printable View
What does it have that MTW does'nt... it's a better game by far.
A lot of issues to be *yawn*..... addressed...
*yawn* ....
No it's not perfect lots to be addressed, but that does'nt surprise me at all.
In conclusion, it's a way better overall SP game than any of the TW series IMO.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
Some people just will never be happy until CA release MTW 1 in a new box and charge them £30 for it.
If you want MTW 1, it's there to play. Just because MTW 2 isn't a clone doesn't make it rubbish. It kicks the ass of MTW 1 in my opinion.
Well.. I finally got M:TW 2 the other night have managed to spend 10ish hours on it so far. I was a huge M:TW fan and was disappointed in R:TW. Right now my feeling is pretty much the same with M:TW2.
Pre-emptive note: I'm going off on a bit of a rant here, guess I just need to get it off my chest, I've been looking forward to M:TW2 for a long time and after finally getting it, well I'm tempted to just toss it in the drawer and load up M:TW1 and get a good campaign going with Turkey. A lot of the issues I'm having is probably because I’m so much more familiar with M:TW1 and its set of oddities and quirks where as I still have a lot to get used to and adapt to in M:TW2.
I think M:TW2 does a lot of things better than the original, my main problem is that, at the end of the day, it just feel a lot less enjoyable and a lot more frustrating than the original.
Some of pro's and con's in my opinion:
Pro's
- M:TW2 is far more technically advanced. In addition I was pleasantly surprised at how well the game runs on my 'not quite new' computer (AMD 2400,1 GB Ram, 6600 NVidia). On medium graphical settings the game runs smooth and fully playable.
- Graphics.. No surprise here :)
- The trade system is a lot better overall than in the original. Still getting the handle on the merchant NPC's but you no longer just flood every ocean square with a ship and get near unlimited funds.
Cons
Unit AI: I’m not really saying that the unit AI in M:TW was 'smarter' but it seemed a lot more consistent in its behavior. In M:TW I felt like I was controlling formations of soldiers, in M:TWII (and R:TW) it feels lot more like I’m trying to get chaotic random mobs of thugs to just do what I want them to and pray I last longer than the other guy. My units seem to do completely irrational things all to often, and what’s worse they seem to be inconsistent in their actions so it seem a lot harder to learn how to deal with the AI oddities (MTW had its fair share of AI oddities as well :P).
In addition Units often seem to react very sluggishly to orders. You issue a move or attack order.. and nothing seems to happen. Then after a handful of seconds they finally slowly start reacting. Given the otherwise very high speed of battles in general, it's really getting to me when units sometimes have trouble reacting to basic commands.
World Map: It a LOT bigger and while the new style of world map offers a lot of interesting possibilities, in many ways I really miss the simple functionality of the risk style map. Not nearly as fancy but it was easy and intuitive, you could do what you wanted your units to do fast. In R:TW and M:TW2 I feel like I’m spending way to much time getting from A to B.
Sieges: Since R:TW sieges play a lot bigger part in the games battles and to be honest the battle system just doesn’t seem to work very well in siege situations. Way to much time is spent, just trying to get your men to go through a gate (like R:TW they still seem to be incapable of simply waiting till the unit before them gets through and instead either just never move or move in the wrong direction). The narrow streets means that it’s all about just getting into a brawl and hoping you win, outmaneuvering the enemy becomes irrelevant when maneuvering isn’t possible. Cool feature, siege weapons looks really cool (and actually works pretty well in my experience) but sieges just seem less fun than open battles.
Battle speed
My main issue with R:TW still annoys me in M:TW2, the battles tend to feel more like a random arcade game, the challenge becomes less a matter of using better strategy and more of clicking your units fast enough to do all that you need to do to keep things moving in a sensible way. I just tried playing around with the Battle of Agincourt (spelling), My longbow men would at times try to charge chivic knights in melee, and with the high speed and poor unit reaction time there was nothing I could to prevent it, all I could really do was shake my head.
In summary, yeah it's a rant, But I still honestly feel that while M:TW2 is far more advanced the game, in many ways this also results in M:TW2 having a lot less intuitive and less elegant way of doing things. More advanced, beter graphics and more 'stuff' but often at the expense rather and in support of overall gameplay. Most of all, I sorely miss the feeling of commanding armies instead of trying to get a bunch of loonies with pointy objects to act as a part of an army.
Did you put them on "Defend" stance during deployment? Let's start with that.Quote:
Battle speed
My main issue with R:TW still annoys me in M:TW2 ... I just tried playing around with the Battle of Agincourt (spelling), My longbow men would at times try to charge chivic knights in melee, and with the high speed and poor unit reaction time there was nothing I could to prevent it, all I could really do was shake my head.
The game has great potential and does give superb moments every now and then. If you've not bought it already then I might advise waiting and seeing what this proposed patch does before buying.
I'll run the battle again and check. I'm sure there's a lot of details and diffrences I still need to pick up. What really got me though wasent so much that they behaved in an irrational manner.. that certainly also happened in M:TW1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
At the end of the day it's probably mostly a matter of teaching an old dog to play a new game :help:
It sounds like the skirmish button was disabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
Hmm. That would explain a lot.
There is plenty of manuevaring to be done in city/castle battles.
However, due to the nature of the battles, you really have to be planning them from the beginning - since before you enter the battle, even. I always try to make enough battering rams and ladders to assault settlements from 2 sides at once.
Honestly - it just sounds to me like you're so used to the little quirks and oddities of MTW1 that you're annoyed at the new ones in MTW2 :P
What do you mean when you say it feels like an arcade game?
Also your computer may have troubles with larger-scale battles
Good pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Jinnigan
I your generally right, after a long time with M:TW I'm sure at least some of my misgivings is taht it just dosent 'feel right'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinnigan
The arcade game comment is probably not fair, thought what I ment was taht in M:TW I felt that the most of my time in battle was spent setting up and executing strategies whereas in M:TW2 (and R:TW) I tend to feel like my time and energy is spend micro managing my troops, and that the challenge has shifted from being a matter of planning / executing to clicking and ordering troops fast enough, selecting and clicking units half hidden behind buildings and other units.
I finally uninstalled MTW:VI from my computer. Had all this time since RTW and did not play it, but got tempted often. Now I'm not tempted anymore.
Things I miss from MTW1:
1. Simultaneous moves with the AI. That added a LOT of uncertainty, and therefore fun, to the game
2. Ability to do province scale maneuvers to destroy enemy forces by making them withdraw.
3. More field battles than now, and the battles seemed to matter more in MTW.
4. No squalor problems. Generally, once an area was secured, it remained
secured. No rebels in the countryside either.
5. Campaign battle movies.
6. Specialized province bonuses.
Things that are MUCH better in MTW2:
1. Sea battles and sea transit is much more realistic.
2. Sieges work. City battles are real battles now.
3. Campaign map geographically accurate, with city locations.
4. Graphics much more immersive.
5. Battle interface much improved. Drag select, and left-click to select, right-click to attack/move was a much needed improvement
On the balance, M2TW is much better. Buy it and you won't go back.
Still, I wish they would bring back simultaneous movements with the AI on the campaign map (you tell your characters what to do, and they all do it kind of simultaneously with the AI. This will keep you one your toes more often. It will also limit what you can do in a signle turn, making turns go quicker, and giving the AI a better chance).
i had MTW, but never got RTW, so this format is completely new to me.
i love the realism - in MTW you would take 4 years to get from Scotland to Wessex by land, whereas now the movement is far more realistic and adjustments must be made for mountains etc. the map looks much better and having settlements rather than provinces makes MTW2 far more open than MTW - I can remember forming fronts across the whole of central europe with just 5 or 6 stacks, but in MTW2 armies can sneek past you. The one complaint I have is that a merchant standing in a mountain pass blocks it off for anyone else - hardly realistic. IMO they should limit the 'plath blocking' capabilities to armies.
I find the battles pretty much the same. The controls are more detailed, and the graphics superb, but the tactics are still really impressive. I haven't found out how to zoom in on my fighters, not having a mousewheel. Sieges are infinitely better with detailed towns, walls and towers that don't fire on you when there is one defender routing (unlike MTW), and gates require more than a few soldiers hitting them with swords to be damaged.
The diplomacy system and settlement based game reminds me of Civilisation, and MTW2 imo is a more detailed, medieval version of this game, albeit with a different battle system. I really like the diplomacy - but one problem is that my diplomats are crap at bribing armies, and you can only propose marriage to certain princesses - i'm yet to work out which ones, so in my family tree of well over 100 nobles (alive & dead), there are just 3 foreign princesses.
This brings me on to one of the strengths - the family tree. I love seeing exactly who is related to who etc., and it removes the frustrations of MTW where you get confused about which princes will become mere generals when your leader dies. However, the selection process of faction leaders and heirs is crap. In MTW, you always had a King with a King like name, such as Richard IV. My current MTW2 King, as the English in 1205, is King Barnaby. Nuff said. As far as I know, English kings historically have been the eldest male son of the previous King. However, my leaders are frequently the second oldest child, one has been the son of my princess and her husband, and the heirs are very rarely the son of the King. In this sense, it does leadership badly.
Overall, I think the agents are better - they've gone back to Shogun and put in movie clips for assassinations etc. which is a good addition. Assassins are very difficult to train up, and some targets have stupid success chances - while my assassin had all 8 stars, he still had a 7% chance of killing a bishop - surely even if he was a good bishop this percentage should be not less than 40%. Merchants are also a good addition, although they don't make you THAT much money, and I hate the way they disappear if they get bunned off a resource.
MTW2 does units better. If an army is in Britain, I can hire Welsh Spearmen, but in the Sahara, the mercenaries are Sudanese Tribesmen. Fighting against Scotland will not put you up against a rabble of peasants and Highland Clansmen, like MTW, but a more efficient army with far more diverse, localised units. In the same way, the AI is better, and a rebel army will consist of local units, not just peasants.
I haven't reached this point yet, but the New World is supposed to be a good addition - and the reason I bought the game. When I first heard they were making MTW2, I thought it would be a awaste of time as there were only minor changes to make to MTW, which could be done with a patch. Then I heard about the New World, and my opinion changed. Also, having far off regions like Timbuctu on the map is an improvement.
The papacy is far more important in this game, mainly because you can influence it. I love the college of cardinals, particularly since training priests from a town with a Master Theologian's Guild means you have a constant flow of them into the College. The Pope in my England game is English, as is about 75% of the Cardinal's College, and both my enemies (Milan & Poland) have been excommunicated. Despite being English and having a 100% approval rating, I lose on average 1 family member a turn thanks to inquisitors. This is a bug that ought to be fixed.
Any other improvements will have already been mentioned. sorry its an essay but hey...
T'was a good essay though :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by gingergenius
Although Id seriously invest in a mouse with a mousewheel. Don't know how you have managed without :beam:
About the assassin success chance, I think it is not in any way bugged.
If an assassin gets up to 40-60% success on worthwhile targets, the history books ought to be rewritten...
It really is realistic that even a skilled assassin does not kill with any certainty unless the target is unprotected (no spies) and unskilled (low agent skill/low general stats). It also makes it difficult to get the super assassins that can then kill off anyone, which sort of ruins the game as it is supposed to be about conquest.
Now I think the usefulness of assassins is that you train them up and then you have a chance (5-20%) to do a major hit on the enemy, which can be increased to higher cumulative chance if you have multiple assassins. And even if the assassin fails, he can try again. I managed to kill a cardinal for example, but it took one assassins life and two others that tried a few times.
I feel that if one would have had something like 40% chance, it would have made it too easy for me to control the game with continued assassinations.
Sabotage should be and is quite possible now, even with low skill assassins. I just hope that the AI factions would use it sometimes too, instead of continously trying to kill my generals with a horde of assassins (they succeed sometimes though).
Some of the differences I've noticed. Please keep in mind that I play m/m and am by no means a "hard core" player.
Enemy units in battle. If you dont press them aggressivly, they will tend to fall back and reform once you get them to "shaken", rather than just hold on till they break and run.
Enemy formations. If you are obiously of better strength than them, will tend to advance but hold at a little distance and wait for you to move, then attack while you are at disadvantage. This is probably where the "passive bug" comes from too, is my guess.
There are some complaints about the AI at the campaign level but from what I've seen it is very much improved over all previous games. Some of the complaints tend to sound more like folk wanting human opponents with full human reasoning behind the moves and that just aint gonna happen for a long time to come.
Sometimes, I prefer to play the game as a turn based strat game only. I've done this off and on with all the TW games.
M2TW is the first in the series where the "campaign game" feels like a real, stand alone, game. There is much more to do, much more to think through and much more to bite you on your petooty if you get sloppy.
Instead of trying to describe the feel of the tactical battles, you can visit youtube and see player made vids and the demo vids from CA to get that perspective. The battles are amazing, graphically.
Btw, dont get ambushed. Those battles are now fought with the ambushee all strung out in "march order" with the enemy hitting from the flank in surpise attack. Those can get real bloody, real quick.
From my perspective, bang for buck wise, books, dvds or any other recreation format that would give me as much enjoyment for as long a time would cost at least a few hundred dollars more than this M2TW, so I'm pretty happy with it... and when the mods start coming out...that'll probably go up a few x10s in the bang catagory.
Everytime a new TW title is shipped it seems the same type of complaints tend to crop up:
1/ Bugs & annoying gameplay issues:
When people claim the latest iteration is inferior or unplayable as a result of the bugs, I desperately want to remind them of what M:TW etc were like on initial release. Every TW title I've played has shipped with bugs, and I think I've just learnt to live with it – not ideal, but with such complex games its hardly surprising that they can't get it all right for v 1.0.
Gameplay issues are another. It seems people look at previous iterations of the game and somehow ignore or forget about some of the issues … I've found nothing in M;TW2 that comes close to being as bad as the old M:TW's sea trade (arrgghgh!!!). With a lot of annoying gameplay issues you learn to get used to, or learn to work around them – but with a brand new game these issues often feel like they are spoiling the game until you learn to work around them.
2/ Personal preference:
Each game in the TW series tries to strike a balance between Depth vs Accessibility or Realism vs Gameplay etc etc. So while making the game super realistic will certainly please some, it might prove to unforgiving for others. Adding far more depth to areas of the game will please some, but the additional micromanagement will scare others away.
When one of the games leans one way or another, it may not be ideally what you want from the game, but it doesn't necessarily make it a bad game.
Anyway, from my somewhat limited experience of M:TW2 ill put the following good/bad points:
+ Balance of Income/Expenses
I found that I was always pushed for cash. I've never got to that point where I'm rolling in cash like I used to in RTW/MTW. It means there isn't that 'tipping point' in the game when you just become too strong and the games a forgone confusion. At first I thought it was just that I sucked at the game, but it seems others share the same experience. I always liked the star t of a MTW/RTW campaign the most where I was constantly struggling for cash… now this feeling seems to last much further into the campaign which keeps things interesting a lot longer.
+ Missions from the council/pope
These seem to be really well integrated and its great that you often get conflicting requests. The seem to be more varied than RTW, and they also seem to be pretty flexible in time frame.
+ Relations/Diplomicy
I really like the addition of solid information about what other nations think of me. In particular, its useful to know, before offering a trade how 'generous' my offer is. Its nice to be able to trade with nations, knowing if you are going to piss them off in the process. The influence of the Pope seems better than in MTW
+ Agent movies
I know it doesn't seem like much, but I am (still) really enjoying watching these each time… it’s a cool way to build up to revealing if the mission was a success or failure.
- Agent movement
I seem to spend more time moving my agents around each turn that I do anything else. It would be great to be able to set priests on 'auto-preach' etc, so they go out and do their thing with no input from me. Same with merchants. Even just a better interface would go a long way.
- Siege pathing issues
Similar problem to R:TW in that movement orders and things in streets and around buildings can be really frustrating. No more so than RTW in my limited experience.
For me, I think its too early to say how MTW2 compares to the previous titles, but right now the most important thing for me is the game feels pretty challenging and interesting (both campaign & battles) and I'm still enjoying